Skip to main content

Full text of "Copenace v. West, Board of Inquiry, November 1979 BOI 106"

See other formats


IN THE iVIATTER OF THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE 1970 



AND 



IN THE MATTER OF the Complaint made by Mr. Marvin 

Copenace of Kenora, Ontario, alleging 
discrimination because of race, colour 
and ancestry with respect to the occupancy 
of housing accomodation by Mrs. Jean West. 



DECISION 



BOARD OF INQUIRY 



EDWARD J. RATUSHNY 



DATED: NOVEMBER 23, 19 79 



V 



IN THE MATTER OF THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE 19 70 

AND 

IN THE MATTER OF the Complaint made by Mr. Mervin Copenace 

of Kenora, Ontario, alleging discrimination 
because of race, colour and ancestry with 
respect to the occupancy of housing accomo- 
dation by Mrs. Jean West. 

DECISION 

On the 4th day of June, 19 79, I was appointed a Board 
of Inquiry under the Ontario Human Rights Code , R.S.O. 19 70, 
c.318, as amended, to hear and decide the Complaint made by 
Mervin Copenace alleging discrimination because of race, colour 
and ancestry with respect to the occupancy of housing accomo- 
dation by Mrs. Jean West. 

The hearing was delayed for some weeks while attempts 
were made to ascertain who would be representing Mrs. West 
at the hearing. In early August, I learned that Mrs. West 
intended to represent herself in this matter. By letter dated 
August 9th, I informed Mrs. West and counsel for the Commission 
that the hearing would be held in Kenora on September 20th. 
In addition to complying with the requirements of the Statutory 
Powers Procedure Act , the letter outlined the procedure which 
would be followed at the hearing. Mrs. West was also invited 
to call me by telephone if she had any problems with the date 
in question. 

On August 20th, I received a telephone call from Mrs. 
West, informing me that she had planned to attend a convention 
in Toronto during the week in question. She also informed me 
that she was 6 8 years of age and wanted her daughter to be 
present to assist her at the hearing. She added that 



her daughter resided in Winnipeg and could only attend on 
a Tuesday or a Wednesday. Subsequently, both Mrs. West and 
counsel for the Coinmission , Mr. Ewart, agreed to the hearing 
being held on Tuesday, October 9th. In fact, it commenced 
and was completed on that day. 

I do wish to commend Mr. Ewart for his understanding 
and co-operation in both the selection of a hearing date and 
the conduct of the hearing, where a number of concessions were 
made to Mrs. West, taking into account that she was not repres- 
ented by counsel. The testimony was frequently contradictory 
and, understandably , not always clearly presented because of 
the absence of counsel for the respondent. I, therefore, consider 
it important to provide a detailed, written analysis of the 
facts. 

Mrs. West is a widow who owns or has an interest in 
a number of properties in Kenora. At all relevant times, she 
had owned a rental preperty at 409 Matheson Street North. 
According to her testimony, this house was built for her some 
34 years ago and had been rented to Native Indian tenants almost 
continuously during those 34 years. 

Mrs. Jane Watson resides at 415 Matheson Street. 
Only a lane separates her house from this house which was 
owned by Mrs. West. In late August or September of 1977, 
Mrs. Watson telephoned Mrs. West to complain about the condition 
of the property. According to Mrs. Watson ''s testimony: "... 
there was just this great pile of garbage and old mattresses 
and old bottles and everything around the house ... '\ She 



- 3 - 



™ informed Mrs, West that: "there had been five children living 
in the house over the past year with no proper place to play, 
the front door during the winter had just a screen... it was 
terrible". Mrs. Watson had previously called Children's Aid, 
"when the children had been left on a couple of occasions". 
She had also called the city building inspector. 

In her testimony, Mrs. West referred to what must 
. have been the same telephone conversation but stated that the 
caller was Mrs. Ceder^all. This appears to have been a mere 

^ slip of the tongue on Mrs. West's part. 

Mrs. West testified that the caller informed her 
that there were five children living in the house. (The 
tenants had previously informed Mrs. West that they had three 
children). According to Mrs. West, the caller was quite upset 
and said: "...we are tired of you always having Native people 
in your house... they always cause trouble ... they block the 
lane with cars and trucks and they have a lot of company...". 
The caller threatened to call the health inspector and the 
building inspector. 

m 

Some fifteen minutes later, Mrs. West received a 
call from the building inspector, Mr. Hensrud, who informed 
her that he had received a complaint about the house at 409 
Matheson and asked her to meet him there. They did both meet 
at the house. The health inspector also attended. It became 
apparent that the tenants had moved out (without paying the 
past two months rent) . The building inspector looked at the 
inside and outside of the house and informed Mrs. West that 







.4 



considerable repairs would be required. He indicated that 
he would have to arrange for a contractor to examine what 
needed to be done. 

Mrs. West proceeded, on her own to hire a contractor, 
who apparently accepted $800 for two week's work. She decided 
that he was too expensive and let him go. She then approached 
Marvin Magnusson and asked him to "fix up the house for me 
on the inside so that it can be presentable enough to rent". 
She explained to him at the outset that she would then apply 
the rent monies to the Credit Union debt. Mr. Magnusson 's 
bills totalled approximately $2,800, according to Mrs. West. 

On or about December 23rd, the complainant, Mervin 
Copenace, his "common law", wife, Sandra, and his sister, 
visited the house in question with a view to renting it. Mr. 
Magnusson informed them that he was renting the house for 
Mrs. West. An agreement was reached whereby the Copenaces 
would rent the house at $150 per month payable on the first 
of every month to Mr. Magnusson. 

The Copenaces had also agreed to clean up the mess 
inside the house in return for waiver of the rent for the 
last week in December. Apparently, someone had used the 
house for a party while repairs were still being completed 
and left the place in shambles. Sandra Copenace testified 
that they subsequently washed all the walls and windows and 
scrubbed the floors, counters and cupboards. Other evidence 



c 



- 5 - 



confirmed that the inside of the house was kept clean and neat 
while occupied by the Copenaces. 

Apparently Mr. Magnusson received Mrs. West's approval 
by telephone for the rental of the house to the Copenaces. 
However, Mrs. West denies Mr. Magnusson 's testimony that she 
had authorized him to collect the rent. Apparently, a legal 
dispute continued to exist between them at the time of this 
hearing. In any event, at the time of the rental, Mrs. West 
had not made the arrangement with the Credit Union and Mr. 
Magnusson proceeded to collect the rent each month from the 
Copenaces. 

All of the evidence indicates that the Copenaces 
were the complete opposite of the previous tenants. The 
rent was paid on time, the place was kept clean and neat 
and the neighbours barely noticed them. The Copenaces and * 
their two year old boy appeared to be happy in their new 
home and Mr. Copenace had regular employment. The evidence 
suggests that they were, simply, very fine people to have 
as tenants. 

On March 27th of 19 78, after the new tenants had 
been there for approximatley three months, they met Mrs. West 
for the first time. She called on them at approximately 10:00 
a.m. and, a second time, shortly after 6:00 p.m. The Copenaces 
gave one version of these meetings. Mrs. West gave a very 
different version. 

According to the testimony of the Copenaces, Mrs. 
West was invited in but declined and did not seem friendly. 

... 6 



I 



- 6 - 

She merely informed them that they should pay their rent 
to the Lakewood Credit Union. Nothing more was said. 

However, Mrs. West returned later the same day. 
At this tim.e, Mr. Copenace ' s mother was visiting together 
with his sister and her children. They were all sitting 
in the kitchen when Mrs. West knocked on the back door. 
Again, she was invited in but declined. Both of the Copenaces 
testified that Mrs. West made statements to the effect that: 
the house was not supposed to be rented to Indians because 
the neighbours had signed a petition; (upon observing the 
visitors) when one Indian moves in, "the whole tribe moves 
in"; visitors should only be admitted "once in a while"; 
unless the garbage in the backyard was cleaned up they v/ould 
receive notice to move out. The only response was from Mr. 
Copenace, who stated that the garbage in the ^ard was not 
theirs and, in any event it was frozen to the ground and 
could not be moved. ' 

Mrs. West's version of these meetings was very 

different. She testified that, in the morning, she asked 

Mr. Copenace to step outside and he did, although it was 

possible to see in through the glass of the aluminium door. 

Her testimony was as follows: 

"I said, Mr. Copenace ... I didn''t know 
really that there were Indian people 
living here but that doesn't make any 
difference, I have always had Indian 
people living in this house ever since 
it was built practically, that's all 
right" . 



- 7 - 



She added that she had a letter from the insurance company 
asking her to check the house every three months and asked 
Mr. Copenace to pay the rent to the Credit Union rather than 
to Mr. Magnusson. 

She went on to testify that when she noticed the 
other people in the kitchen, she informed Mr. Copenace that 
she had received complaints from the neighbours about Indian 
people living in the house but, in effect, that she had stood 
up for her tenants and defended them. 

Mrs. West testified further that when she returned 
in the evening she spoke with him outside once more and formed 
the impression that the Copenaces were very nice people. 
She told him, again, that she had received complaints from 
the neighbours about her having Indian tenants. She related 
that one of them had stated that when "you rent to one Indian 
person, they bring the whole tribe". However, she reassured 
him that she did not care at all about those complaints. As 
long as the place was kept tidy, there was nothing that anyone 
could do. 

In assessing the credibility of these two versions 
of the facts, I have no hesitation in accepting the testimony 
of the Copenaces over that of Mrs. West. Mrs. West's testimony 
was highly self-serving and embellished. It simply did not 
have the ring of truth. It is highly unlikely that she would 
make a second visit to the house on the same day to report her 
reassurances of the morning in relation to the complaints 



( 

i 

i 



r 



r 



- 8 - 



of the neighbours. That is particularly so, when the 
complaints must have been in relation to the previous 
tenants . 

A far more likely explanation of the facts is that 
Mrs. West was surprised and annoyed to learn on her morning 
visit that the new tenants were Native Indians. However, 
she did not verbally express her feelings at the time. 
Rather, she considered the situation during the afternoon 
and returned that evening to require that the garbage in the 
yard be cleaned up or notice would be given to the tenants 
to vacate. 

Upon seeing Mr. Copenace's sister and her children 
as well as his mother and his own wife and son, it is possible 
that Mrs. West jumped to the erroneous conclusion that she 
had been deceived about the number of occupants, just as 
she had been deceived by her previous tenants. Whatever may 
have prompted her remark about "the whole tribe", I am 
satisfied that she made it and that she also warned the 
Copenaces not to receive visitors too frequently. 

This assessment of the facts is supported by the 
testimony of a number of the other witnesses: 

- Mr. Magnusson testified that Mrs. West stated that she 
did not want Native people or children in her house. 
Mrs. West agreed that she had specified children but 
denied referring in this way to Native people. 

- Mrs. Cederwall testified that in conversations with 

Mrs. West that Spring, she stated that the present tenants 
were dirty and were wrecking the place and that she wanted 

. . .9 



- 9 - 



them out. Mrs. West denied making this statement as well. 
Mr. Jackson testified that Mrs. West told him that she had 
nothing against the Copenaces but her concern was with Indians, 
generally, because they had wrecked the house. She also denied 
saying this. 

Moreover, the fact that Mrs. West referred to the outside 
garbage in her "notice to vacate" dated April 20th, strongly 
suggests that she had discussed it with the Copenaces even 
though she makes no reference to it in her testimony. 

I, therefore, conclude that Mrs. West discriminated 
against the Copenaces with respect to the terms and conditions 
of occupancy of the housing accomodation which they were 
renting from her. Her admonition with respect to visitors, 
albeit in vague terms, and the requirement that the yard be 
cleaned up when the condition of that yard was attributable 
to the previous tenants, were the direct result of the race, 
colour and ancestry of the tenants and were in contravention 
of section 3 (1) (b) of the Ontario Human Rights Code . 

Was there also a contravention of section 3 (1) (b) of 
the Code through the denial of occupancy of the house in 
question? 

Mrs. West both testified and argued that she really 
would have preferred to let the Copenaces remain in the house. 
She stated that her reason for giving them notice to vacate 
was that she was required to do so by the building inspector, 
Mr . Hensrud. 



.10 



- 10 - 



The problem which she faces in asserting this 
position is that her notice to vacate is dated April 20th. 
The testimony of the building inspector, Mr. Hensrud, whom 
she called as her witness, is as follows: 

(1) On May 30th, he issued an order addressed to Mrs. West 
requiring that a number of serious structural deficien- 
cies of the house be corrected. 

(2) On June 8th, another order v/as issued indicating that 
the previous order had not been complied with and 
requiring that the family occupying the house be notified 
to vacate in order to permit renovations to occur. In 
other words the house was "condemned". 

(3) On cross-examination, Mr. Hensrud testified that he 
received a complaint about the garbage in March and both 
he and the health inspector "checked it out". While he 
did not do a detailed structural inspection until May 
29th, he "knew the situation" at the time of the complaint 
He testified that it did not strike him as necessary, at 
that time, to bring the situation to Mrs. West's attention 
On re-examination, he stated that this complaint in 
March was the first which he received. When asked if 

he received a complaint in 19 77, he replied: "Not that 
I recollect". 

Counsel for the Commission argued that this sequence 
of events effectively destroyed Mrs. West's contention that 
her notice of April 20th was generated by pressure from the 
building inspector. The suggestion is that the first notice 



.11 



- 11 - 



which Mrs. West received was contained in Mrs. Hensrud's 
order dated May 30th. I cannot agree with this contention. 

Mrs. West was a far more convincing witness than Mr. 
Hensrud on this issue. Surely there is no question that 
Mr. Hensrud received a complaint in August or September of 
1977 and attended on the premises with the health inspector 
and Mrs. West at that time. He also spoke informally to her 
at that time about the state of the building. Mrs. West 
testified that he subsequently spoke to her infoinnally on 
numerous occasions "putting pressure" on her and "bugging" 
her to deal with the structural problems of the house. In 
Mrs. West's words, "...he has had lots of conversations with 
me. He has phoned me and I have gone back and forth so many 
times I have got tired of it". 

Moreover, during his testim.ony in chief, Mr. Hensrud 

provided support for this view of the facts: 

"...my order went out on May 30th, but 
we had a complaint before then, but then 
when we find that we just handled everything 
verbally at that time, well nothing was done 
so I just had to go out and issue an order". 

In other words, Mrs. West's explanation cannot be rejected 

out of hand simply because she received the first formal order 

from the building inspector subsequent to her notice to the 

tenants to vacate. 

The question which remains, then, is whether the 
fact that the Copenaces are Native Indian, motivated Mrs. West 
to serve them with the notice to vacate on April 20th. In 
dealing with this question it is necessary to keep in mind 
all of the background circumstances. 

...12 



c 



- 12 - 



In the fall of 1978, Mrs. West was faced with at 
least one complaint about the previous tenants. They left 
her house in an appalling condition. They also left without 
notice and with the rent two months in arrears. They told 
her they had only three children when there were five. 

In all of these circumstances, Mrs. West came to 
the unfortunate conclusion that her problem was not with the 
particular tenants who had rented the premises previously, but 
with Native people, generally, as tenants. She instructed 
Mr. Magnusson that the house was not to be rented to people 
with children or to Indians. 

Mrs. West must also have been deeply troubled by 
the condition of the house. She had rather unwisely invested 
$3,600 in a building which was structurally dilapidated and 
which was soon to be condemned. Indeed, the building inspector 
indicated that if the contractor had applied for a permit, 
as he was required to do, it would have been denied. Moreover, 
the building inspector became aware that the interior repairs 
had been done without a permit and began to raise with Mrs. West 
the serious structural problems. Meanwhile, Mrs. West was 
anxious to have the premises occupied as long as possible in 
order to continue her payments for the repairs. (There would 
also be another bill for repairs to another of her houses in 
the amount of $8,000.) 

I have concluded that before Mrs. West visited the 
Copenaces on March 27, she had been under the impression that 
her house was being rented, in accordance with her instructions 



I 



4 



- 1 3- 



to non-Native persons. Upon meeting Mr. Copenace, she probably 
felt betrayed by Mr. Magnusson. She immediately associated 
the Copenaces with the previous tenants and concluded that 
she had, again, been deceived about the number of persons 
occupying the premises. These circumstances culminated in 
her extremely unfortunate reaction on the evening in question, 
which, as stated earlier, constituted a contravention of 
section 3 (1) (a) of the Code. 

However, after the March 27th incident, there was 
no immediate attempt to remove the Copenaces from the premises. 
Indeed, it was very much in Mrs. West's economic interests 
to have them rem.ain as long as possible unless, of course, she 
had another tenant who was prepared to m^ove in immediately. 
She might well have let matters stand and continued to have the 
rent credited to her. She might have learned that, in fact, 
the Copenaces were excellent tenants and, indeed, did clean up 
the outside garbage early in April even though they were under 
no obligation to do so. 

I have concluded that the complaint by the Copenaces 
to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Mrs. West's sub- 
sequent meeting with Mr. Jackson of that Commission, on April 
12th, strengthened her resolve to have the Copenaces removed. 
Mr. Jackson testifies that at the close of his conversation 
with Mrs. West, she described them as troublemakers who should 
be given notice because of their complaint to the Commission. 
The meeting ended with Mrs. West stating that she did not have 
"to take any more of this" and leaving. She refused to meet 
with Mr. Jackson again. 

14 



- 14 - 

Mrs. West was not only upset at the involvement of 
the Ontario Human Rights Commission, generally, but felt that 
Mr. Jackson had not treated her with appropriate respect. It 
appeared from Mr. Jackson's demeanour in the hearing room that, 
in fact, he did not have much patience with Mrs. West. 

This interpretation of the facts is greatly strengthened 
by the testim.ony of Mrs. Sharon Cederwall. Mrs. Cederwall was 
not precise with respect to dates. However, it is consistent 
with her testim.ony that in March she entered into discussions 
with Mrs. West about renting the house in question on behalf 
of an elderly lady and in mid-April passed on to Mrs. West a 
cheque dated May 1st. As it turned out, the proposed tenant 
was unable to care for herself and it v;as necessary for her 
to move into a home for the aged. 

Mrs. West gave two different versions of her discussion 
with Mrs. Cederwall. She testified that when she received the 
inquiry by telephone, she responded by saying that she had heard 
that the lady in question was going to be moving into Pinecrest 
Home so that there was no point in discussing the matter. 
However, on cross-examination she stated that she discussed the 
possibility of moving into the house which the Copenaces were 
then occupying, and having the elderly lady live with her as 
a tenant. She also agreed that there had been some discussions 
of a cheque but stated that she asked that it not be sent and 
denied receiving it. There is no reason not to accept Mrs. 
Cederwall 's testimony that such a cheque had been passed on to 
Mrs. West and that Mrs. West had subsequently confirmed by 



.15 



- 15 - 

telephone that she had received it. 

I, therefore, conclude that Mrs. West served notice 
upon Mr. and Mrs. Copenace to vacate the premises because 
they were Native Indian, in contravention of section 3 (1) (a) 
of the Code. 

It should be made clear to Mrs. West that this inquiry 
is not a judgment of her general character or past life. The 
only issue is whether there has been a contravention of the 
Ontario Human Rights Code in relation to the specific incidents 
raised by the complaint. I find it necessary to make this comment 
in view of the testimony which was led by Mrs. West about having 
rented to Native persons in the past. She spoke of many charitable 
acts on her part in the past both in relation to Native persons 
and others. All of this is commendable and there is no evidence 
of a general pattern of discrimination on her part. It is also 
recognized that she was facing severe financial pressures during 
the time in question. 

However, these circumstances in no way diminish the 
seriousness of these discriminatory acts on her part or the 
effects which they have had upon the Copenaces. 

Following the incident on the evening of March 27th 
the Copenaces were left angry and upset. Mr. Jackson testified 
that when he met with them the next day, they were both very 
concerned and emotionally upset. A neighbour, Mrs. Stevenson, 
spoke with her shortly after the incident when Mrs. Copenace, 
almost in tears, told her that they were happy in the house, 
showed her how they had fixed it up and said that they would 



.16 



-16- 



be moving out because the neighbours did not want Indians 
living there. Mrs. Copenace testified that^ since the incidents 
in question^ she has felt that she has been treated unfairly 
because she is an Indian whereas she had not experienced such 
feelings previously. 

The Copenaces experienced considerable hardship 
since being forced to leave the house which they had been 
renting from Mrs. West. When they were unable to find another 
accomodation, they moved into the basement of Mr. Copenace ' s 
mother's house. This was a two bedroom house with a full base 
mient . Two other families, and a total of fifteen or sixteen 
people were living in this house in July and August while the 
Copenaces remained there. Mr. Copenace was working night 
shifts at the time and found difficulty in sleeping at his 
residence under these conditions. During this period he was 
caught sleeping on the job and was suspended without pay for 
five days. (He was earning approximatley $800 per month at 
the time.) 

In September, they moved to her mother's place and 
took up residence' in an unheated garage. The Copenaces and 
their fjriends continued to try to find a suitable residence. 
In October, they moved to his brother's house where the tv/o 
of them, together with their son, occupied one of the two 
bedrooms. Throughout most of this period, Mrs. Copenace was 
pregnant with their second child, who was born on April 30, 
1979. Finally, in November, some friends moved out of a two 
bedroom house, which the Copenaces subsequently rented and 
occupied . 

... 17 



• 



(• 



- 17 - 



Mrs. Copenace described this house as bigger than 
the one which they had rented from Mrs. West but not in as 
good condition. The rental was $200 per month for the first 
two months but was reduced to $17 5 per month in view of the 
high heating costs. The monthly average for heating in this 
house is $70 per month, whereas the comparable figure was $34 
per month in Mrs. West's house. The Copenaces had also paid 
their relatives $80 per month while staying with them from- 
July through October. 

Section 14c. of the Ontario Human Rights Code authorizes 

a board of inquiry to make an order requiring any party who has 

contravened the Code : 

"...to do any act or thing that, in the 
opinion of the board, constitutes full 
compliance with such provision and to 
rectify any injury caused to any person 
or to make compensation therefore." 

Counsel for the Commission asked for an order requiring Mrs. 

West: 

(1) to offer, in writing, to give Mr. and Mrs. Copenace the 
first available accomodation at the prevailing rent in any 
house in which Mrs. West has an interest; 

(2) to provide a letter of apology to Mr. and Mrs. Copenace . 
for what happened; 

(3) for a period of two years, to report any vacancy in any 
rental accomodation in which she has an interest, to the 
Ontario Human Rights Commission, before it is advertised 
or communicated to others; 

(4) to permit the Commission to monitor the rental practices 
of Mrs. West for the next two years; 

... 18 



~ 18 - 



(5) to pay damages to the Copenaces as follows: 

(a) the sum of $1142 representing the increased cost to 
the Copenaces for rent, heat and electricity in their 
present home from the time of its occupancy to the 
month of the hearing; 

(b) the sum of $200 representing lost wages for the five 
days he was suspended for falling asleep at work. 

(c) general damages upward of $1000_ for Mr. Copenace and 
the same amount for Mrs. Copenace as compensation for 
the humiliation, frustration and psychological anguish 
suffered by them. 

While testifying at the public hearing, Mrs. West made 

the following statement: 

"If Mr. and Mrs. Copenace felt that I 
have injured them in my way, I would 
like to apologize to them. I am very 
sorry. I have never had any intentions 
of hurting them at all.'* 

In the light of the hearing and these findings, Mrs. West should 

realize that, in fact, the Copenaces were deeply hurt by her 

actions. A letter of apology from Mrs. West to the Copenaces 

is appropriate in the circumstances as well as an offer of other 

available accomodation. 

The practice in earlier board decisions has been to 

give a broad interpretation to the term "'full compliance"" in 

section 14c of the Code. That interpretation is justified by 

the special problems of enforcing legislation of this nature. 

In statutory interpretation, the presumption against the taking 

away of common law rights is not appropriate where modern 

statutory proscriptions of a 



•19 



I 



i 



- 19, - 



special "social purpose" type are involved. (See Re Complaint 
of Roland Cooper, July 27, 1973.) Relief under the third and 
fourth heads requested by Commission counsel is, therefore, also 
appropriate . 

However, the special damages claimed in the sum of 
$1142 cannot be granted. These damages were from November of 
1978, when the Copenaces occupied their present home. This is 
almost five months after the previous house had been condemned. 
No doubt, arrangements could have been made for the Copenaces 
to remain in the hom.e beyond June 30th while they searched for 
a new home. However, on June 9th the city building inspector 
had ordered that the family occupying the house be required 
to vacate. In fact, it would have cost more to repair the 
house than to demolish it and erect a new one although the 
formal assessment of a contractor to that effect was not received 
until later. Counsel for the Commission recognized that had 
notice been given on June 9th, the tenants could have been 
evicted legally in September. Special damages will not, there-- 
fore, be considered for the period commencing in November. 

Mr. Copenace's lost' wages fall into another category. 
The precipitating incident occurred at his place of employment 
shortly after leaving Mrs. West's"^ home and there is a strong 
inference that it was the direct result of the extremely 
difficult circumstances under which he was residing at th.e 
time. Mrs. West will be required to pay him the sum of $200 
as compensation for lost wages. 



.. » , 20 



- 20 - 



A general award should also be made to each of the 
Copenaces by way of general rectification for the humiliation, 
frustration and psychological anguish suffered by them. I 
accept the submission of counsel for the Commission that the 
circumstances of the Nawagesic case were less serious than the 
present case. The award in that case, almost two years ago, 
was in the sum of $500. I have already made reference to the 
effect of the incidents in question upon the Copenaces. in 
my view, Mrs. West should be required to pay $900 to Mervin 
Copenace and $9 00 to Sandra Copenace under this head. 

It is, therefore, ordered that: 

(1) the Respondent write a letter to the Complainant and his 
wife, apologizing for her actions and offering them the 
first available accomodation at the prevailing rent in 
any prem.ises which she is offering for rent; 

(2) that, for a period of two years, the Respondent give 
written notice of any vacancy with respect to such premises 
to the Ontario Human Rights Commission prior to any public 
advertisement of such vacancy and that the Commission be 
permitted to monitor her rental practices during this 
period; 

(3) that the Respondent pay to Mervin Copenace the sum of 
$1100 and that the Respondent pay a further sum of $900 
to Sandra Copenace. 

Dated this 23rd day of November, 19 79, 




I 



4